Dimitrios Mylonopoulos

This endorsement addresses costs following a partially successful Mareva injunction motion.

The Plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs against the Defendant Koukia, having succeeded in part against her but failing against the other defendants (Estate and PersTile Inc.).

The court found Koukia's conduct reprehensible and her evidence untruthful, justifying substantial indemnity costs.

However, considering the Plaintiffs' partial success and the limited scope of the injunction obtained, the court awarded one-third of the Plaintiffs' legal fees and half of their disbursements, totaling $7,913.79, to be paid by Koukia within 30 days.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses delays in the discovery process across several consolidated actions.

The primary issue identified was Mr. Behzad Pilehvar's failure to produce all relevant documents, including approximately 11,000 emails and text messages.

The court ordered Mr. Pilehvar to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents by December 19, 2023.

The endorsement also noted Mr. Pilehvar's counsel's contemplation of bringing a motion to remove himself from the record, which would impact scheduled discoveries and a planned mediation session in early spring 2024.

The court provided directions for scheduling future motions and case conferences.

The Plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction against their deceased son's estate, his company, and his common-law spouse, alleging fraud and misappropriation of funds.

The court dismissed the motion against the Estate and the company due to insufficient evidence and procedural issues (lack of appointed estate trustee, uncorroborated evidence under the Evidence Act).

However, the motion was granted in part against the common-law spouse, Rounak Farrokhi Koukia, specifically for e-transfers made from the Plaintiffs' accounts after the son's death, finding a strong prima facie case of unjust enrichment and a real risk of dissipation.

The Mareva injunction against Ms. Koukia was limited to $40,000.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a termination clause in an agreement of purchase and sale (APS).

The clause allowed the seller to terminate if the buyer did not complete a pre-consultation meeting with the municipality within four weeks of signing the APS.

The buyer argued a meeting held *before* the APS was signed satisfied the condition.

The application judge found the clause required a meeting *after* signing and refused to convert the application to an action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's decision not to convert the application to an action and her interpretation of the contract, finding no palpable and overriding error.

A dissenting judge argued the application judge erred in fact by mischaracterizing the pre-signing meeting and in law by failing to give effect to the word "completed" in the clause.

The plaintiff/appellant appealed an Associate Justice's decision refusing to grant a writ of possession for a residential property.

The respondent spouse, who was not on title but claimed rights under the Family Law Act, argued that ongoing enforcement proceedings regarding a second mortgage prevented her from redeeming the first mortgage.

The Superior Court found that the Associate Justice made a palpable and overriding error by conflating the first and second mortgages.

The court held that the spouse had received adequate notice and opportunity to redeem but failed to do so, and ordered the issuance of a writ of possession.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that dismissed its action for the return of a deposit and granted the respondent's defendant's claim for $25,000 in lost profits.

The dispute arose from a contract for the design and construction of a steel building.

The appellant argued that no contract was formed, that it did not breach the contract, and that the trial judge erred in awarding damages and failing to consider evidence.

The Divisional Court applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found that the trial judge's conclusions were reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,000.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought $10,750.00 on a partial indemnity scale, while the defendant argued for a lower amount, citing procedural irregularities.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs in the all-inclusive amount of $9,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis, applying a small reduction for a jurisdictional mix-up and delegation issues.

The plaintiff tenant entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with the defendant landlord to buy the residential property she was leasing.

A dispute arose on closing regarding a $190,000 credit in a schedule to the agreement.

The transaction failed to close, and the plaintiff sued for specific performance, bringing a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff established a triable claim to an interest in land because the property was her home and therefore unique, and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related actions.

The court noted that Commercial List matters were being traversed to the regular Civil list.

Directions were given for the filing of outstanding pleadings, setting aside defaults by consent, and establishing a mutually convenient discovery schedule with a target completion date of December 31, 2022.

The court also provided instructions for scheduling anticipated motions, including a potential Mareva injunction and a motion to join the trials.

A case conference was held regarding five related actions, three of which were on the Commercial List and two were regular civil matters.

Counsel agreed that the actions should be case managed together for efficiency.

The judge agreed to act as the case management judge for all five cases, which will require transferring the Commercial List actions to regular civil actions.